American politics

Ground Zero mosque

The symbolism of Cordoba

AGAIN, sorry to come in very late on this. But it turns out that when Newt Gingrich wrote that the selection of the name "Cordoba House" for the interfaith centre in downtown Manhattan was "deliberately insulting" because it refers to "the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world's third-largest mosque complex," he was not just wrong, but wrong in a very interesting way.

The mosque was indeed begun in the wake of a Muslim conquest—just not the conquest of the Christians. Rather, it was ordered built by the Umayyad emir Abd-ar-Ramman I, probably in part to commemorate his successful conquest of Cordoba in the 750's, fought against other Muslim chieftains loyal to the rival Abbasid Caliphate, and his successful repulsion of subsequent Abbasid attempts to dislodge him by force throughout the 760's. This is, incidentally, probably why the Great Mosque—unlike almost every other Mosque in the Muslim world—is built facing south. Usually, Mosques are built facing Mecca, as Muslims are meant to pray towards the holy city. But the Great Mosque is oriented as if it were actually built in Damascus, the original capital of the Umayyads and the city from which abd-ar-Ramman had had to flee in exile when it was conquered by the Abbasids. Damascus is north of Mecca, while Cordoba is much further west. By pointing his Mosque south, Abd-ar-Ramman I was telling his Muslim rivals, "This exile to Iberia is a temporary thing; you may hold Damascus for now, but in the eyes of our god, my family still controls it."

This is from "Got Medieval", the fascinating blog of Middle-Ages buff Carl Pyrdum. Mr Pyrdum also quips that Mr Gingrich's description of the mosque at Cordoba is akin to describing "the Statue of Liberty as being built by English conquerors in their capital of New York to symbolize their victory over the Dutch," and goes on to cite the Catholic Encyclopedia's description of 10th-century Cordoba ("Owing to the peace which the Christians of Cordova then enjoyed [...] the citizens of Cordova, Arabs, Christians, and Jews, enjoyed so high a degree of literary culture that the city was known as the New Athens"). Anyway, it's a fascinating blog, so please click through and take a look; otherwise Mr Pyrdum might put a medieval book curse on me for having cited all this material.

Someone ought to let Newt the Historian know that there were no "Spaniards" in the 8th century, because there was not yet a Spain.

As learned as he is honorable ! Does he imagine that he can be elected President after being chased out of the House Speakership in disgrace ? Does he think that no one will care that he abandoned two sick wives ? Really, a poor excuse of a man, even on the scale of American politicians.

The other point about the name Cordoba, besides its reference to "rich Corinthian leather," is that Cordoba was considered a place of tolerance for at least much of Muslim rule. This became the center of Jewish civilization in Spain. It was where Rambam - the name of Maimonedes not merely a character in Kinky Friedman's crime novels - was born.

Parts of Muslim Spain truly had a mixed culture of Muslim, Jewish and Christian. If there is a message of intolerance in the name, it is that this culture was destroyed by the Christians who exiled the Jews and Muslims and kept their property. It was the Christians who instituted the Inquisition to maintain the purity of belief. Of course Spain at least let the Muslims and Jews leave; the Portugese waited until Spain had outlawed both groups and then told its Jews they had a short time to leave or convert, meaning forcible conversion was the rule. So if there is a negative message in the name "Cordoba Center" it is Christian intolerance. I can understand that may be offensive to some, but how many Christians even know this history?

This is so last week. A much more interesting question is what to name the proposed new gar bar, slated to be built right next to the Cordoba mosque ("Outfidels" is in the running). The gay bar will specifically welcome Muslim men, which I'm sure the Cordoba mosque's proponents will recognize as a great gesture of inclusiveness and so welcome with open arms.

jomiku, I agree. One of the things I remember from European history is that the Iberian Peninsula in the time of Muslim rule was a much more tolerant place, especially toward Jews, than during Christian rule.

And Sparkleby, can you please explain why you feel perfectly at ease with challenging a Christian singer’s right to perform in public (as you posted about just a few days ago in Washington)? Is it that challenging Christians is okay but challenging Muslims is not?

Jaylat, I missed the part where our friend challenged the apostle's right to sing in the public square. When he said "And he went back to playing Christian rock, and I went to a lunch meeting," are you assuming Sparkleby ate the singer? Because I think he would be wrong to eat a Christian singer if he won't also eat Muezzin.

"I was on the National Mall in front of the Air and Space Museum, and a heavyset Southern fellow with a white beard and folk guitar had set up a tent with a generator-powered PA system; he was playing Christian rock tunes and pausing to tell passersby that America was being punished for turning away from Jesus. I didn't feel like being harangued, and went up to the fellow to ask him who'd given him permission to do so, but the question came out rather politely and we ended up in a short conversation about how to register with the National Park Service to set up a tent for public messaging purposes."

Let's not give more credit to Andalus than is actually due. We are not talking about the Fatimids. The idea of an egalitarian Andalus is a big myth based on a much smaller truth. A lot could change depending on the ruler and the group politics at any given time. Over its long history, Andalus saw a mix of regimes, some very tolerant and some with a nearly Inquisition like character. Even in the best of times, though, dhimmi were never the peers of Muslims.

Of course, I'm evaluating all this from modern, liberal premises. The assertion that it is bad for a nation to have an officially designated dominant culture seems more like an assumption.